Get Public CIS Info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not confirm idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. As a read operation, it is likely safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences covering purpose, return information, and endpoint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description covers the main return fields (status, owner, product details). However, it lacks information on error handling, pagination, or authorization status. For a simple batch tool, it is minimally complete but could be improved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'by list of CIS values', which is redundant, and 'Returns status, owner, product details' which provides output context but does not enhance parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'public information about marking codes' with the method 'by list of CIS values'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool chz_cis_search, which likely supports search by other criteria. The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a list of CIS codes and need their details, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chz_cis_search. No when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.